A problem exists with regard to the issue that arises when a person is in open water. The issue is sharks. People and sharks are naturally wary of each other and it is an ongoing and age old fear to get bitten by sharks. Thus many shark repellents, gadgets and suggestions have been created and made. The objective and function of a proper shark repellent is to do two things: keep a person safe based on its protection effect and encourage the shark to move on, or to not be interested in the person in the first place. Since the mid 70s when “Jaws” came alive on the big screen, people of the Western hemisphere started to live in fear when entering the water. During that time (70's) basically two gadgets were available for commercial use: the “shark chaser” and the “bang stick.” The latter was a stick with an explosive head, that detonated on contact with the shark. This device, although somewhat popular, required a person to shoot an animal thus a person had to get close to one. Further, this device needed to be reloaded after each explosion. Furthermore, a shark that was not immediately killed could attract other sharks through its struggle (sounds produced) which then created another more dangerous scenario that could not be controlled anymore. So after a kill, the person's best bet was to immediately leave the water. But the problem left after that was what if the person could not leave the water? What if a person was in the water after a ship was wrecked and the person was floating in open water? The shark problem would remain. Beside that is also the practical side: a repellent should be small enough that it would easily fit together with other devices e.g. life jackets, be easily stored (and forgotten until needed), and be part of personal rescue equipment on airplanes etc. Poles with explosives are not so easily stored and used.
Another prior art device was the “shark chaser”, a blue powder, made of a copper acetate-negrosine dye mixture, that could be released into the water once sharks showed up. This product was produced on a big scale. The main buyer, the US Navy, believed in its effectiveness. However, the substance was dropped after a few years since an effect could never be established. The only positive effect of this powder was a psychological one since seamen believed they could now repel a shark and thus were less nervous. But even if the dye had an effect, how would a situation with sharks and the person develop once the effect was gone as in diluted by too much current for example?
Both of these “repellents”—the bang stick and the shark chaser—focused on the immediate situation, completely ignoring that the after-effect is important as well and ignoring the possible solution of not getting in contact with a shark in the first place.
In the 90s other forms of repellents came on the market, electrical gadgets, like the “shark pod,” which operates by creating an electrical field surrounding a diver. Although this research is encouraging, the current devices are clumsy, expensive and might not work properly if not constantly maintained or charged. Furthermore it entails the use of electrical parts in water that can corrode or burn the diver should it be in contact with the person's skin.
Shark repellents have focused on the very moment a shark appears and how the animal can be repelled. But that is not sufficient for a repellent. A repellent also needs to offer a solution when a shark does not leave after initial contact as described above.
One shark repellent that was patented in the mid 70s, the so called “shark screen,” (U.S. Pat. No. 3,428,978) offered a workable idea but focused on capturing human fluids, as it was believed back then that human fluids was what would attract sharks, and not the emission of sound (far distance, also called “far-field”), and water pressure (close distance, also called “near-field”). The “shark screen” was basically a sac that a person could get into while being at sea, and keep afloat through an inflatable ring at the top. Although it did not do much, a person felt safer and more relaxed since human fluids were trapped.
Another very similar device with similar limitations was patented for a thin film bag with a closeable top designed to hide its occupant. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,986,220). It should be noted that both patented devices have inflatable top sections but neither is buoyant with out inflation. Thus, if a person can not inflate the top section the devices will collapse around them. Further, a user of these prior art devices is left to float within the device without aid. That is, there is nothing to assist a person in centering or holding himself within the device once inside it.
In another recently issued patent (U.S. Pat. No. 9,150,293), a similar bag, called an ocean survival system, uses camouflage color on its exterior in an effort to make the person “invisible” to sharks by mimicking the surrounding waters. As an expert in this field, Applicant observes that there are several problems and/or non-workable aspects to this prior art device:
incoming sharks are not guided by vision but by sound so that even though the shark may not find its “search image” (e.g. a person's sound pattern may imitate the sound of a struggling fish) it will investigate further. Thus, even a sack that matches the surrounding colors will be found and explored. Likewise, the invention's ability to contain human body fluids is not a valid “improvement” since Applicant understands that they are not shark attractants;
camouflage coloring obviously will have no effect at night and therefore would be useless half of the time; and
no material exists that can imitate the surrounding waters for every given color, shade and patterns caused by wave action nor account for brighter above water background and it is observed that sharks will approach at an angle that uses the brighter above water background to make it stand out better.
Thus, there is a need in the art for a device to allow a person to avoid an encounter with a shark that does not entail electronics, does not require maintenance, and is able to be stored until use. Further, an effective shark repellent or shark avoidance device must be effective in several scenarios: it should not attract a shark, if it comes too close, and it should not attract more sharks after use, and it should make the person “unattractive” regarding the sensory system of sharks. Furthermore, if a person can not leave the water, the “repellent” must also work at night when a shark is not seen.
It therefore is an object of this invention to provide an easy to use, easy to store, non-electric, effective shark avoidance system that meets and exceeds the requirements just listed and actually finally fulfils a long felt need for a device that provides a safe haven for people in shark inhabited waters.